Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz's fight to stop a union uprising

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 35 posts

Re: Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz's fight to stop a union uprising

#21

Post by [deleted] »

djbebs wrote: post #17
toomuchtodo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starbucks is their company. It could not exist without their labor. By unionizing, they obtain that power. You may feel different, but this is what labor regulations and the NLRB is for: to protect workers’ organization rights.

Starbucks belongs to its shareholders, end of story. If unions hadn't seized political power to grant themselves unjust power these leeches, which is what they undoubtedly are, would be where they deserve, fired. They are suppliers of labor, and should be treated like any other supplier of any other good or service, rather than being privileged by the force of law.

[deleted]

Re: Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz's fight to stop a union uprising

#22

Post by hey2022 »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #12

We have a strong legal system that protects employees. We should start working on it and strengthening it so every employee has protections instead of these hived off unions. Unions started for factory workers and farm workers too when they had no rights. It’s entirely unnecessary and disruptive now to rely on unions that simply use an artifact of the past to bully employers and reduce productivity. In America, we ha…

Hard to respond to such a long comment containing so many different talking points.

I can’t tell if you are advocating for updating labor laws instead of relying on unions to influence individual employers. If that’s the case - that’s a strong argument.

Since forcing stronger labor protections at the Federal or even State level takes a very long time and is usually counter-acted by extremely powerful corporate lobbying and propaganda (e.g. Uber), unions offer a more immediate and flexible alternative.

Compared to most European countries, labor laws and benefits in the US are a joke. Unions fought for improving labor condition in Europe, and will hopefully fight for the same level of improvement in the US. Peeing into a bottle should not be OK at an Amazon warehouse, maternity leave should not be an optional benefit, “at-will” employment should not be the standard, etc etc

Re: Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz's fight to stop a union uprising

#23

Post by klyrs »

djbebs wrote: post #17
toomuchtodo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starbucks is their company. It could not exist without their labor. By unionizing, they obtain that power. You may feel different, but this is what labor regulations and the NLRB is for: to protect workers’ organization rights.

Starbucks belongs to its shareholders, end of story. If unions hadn't seized political power to grant themselves unjust power these leeches, which is what they undoubtedly are, would be where they deserve, fired. They are suppliers of labor, and should be treated like any other supplier of any other good or service, rather than being privileged by the force of law.

> Starbucks belongs to its shareholders, end of story.

Not even close. Workers have rights, among them the freedom of association up to and including forming associations centered around collective bargaining for better wages and working conditions.

Re: Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz's fight to stop a union uprising

#24

Post by MuffinFlavored »

stryker7001 wrote: post #9
Asparagirl wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re not curious. You’re being disingenuous. If you were actually curious, you’d read the article , which goes into a lot of detail about the unsafe work conditions, the equipment breakdowns, the unstable hours, the student debt making the unstable hours even more precarious, and so on.

I read the article. It tries to give a balanced view of both the good and the bad, including details, but if your read the article closely, it doesn't say exactly what the union is trying to do. Also read the 2 links provided above, because I was interested. On the second page 'what will the union do" the answer is 'its up to us', so I tend to agree, it's not clear what they are asking for yet.

Would you agree with the comment you are replying to that on average, Starbucks is a place of "unsafe" working conditions?

Re: Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz's fight to stop a union uprising

#25

Post by jmpman »

acr25 wrote: post #13
jmpman wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

That reply is garbage (deliberately?) The union is trying to do good for employees. In a better climate, Starbucks would be working with its unions to make sure that things for ALL employees are better.

Starbucks is not a coal mine. They’re located on street corners with other restaurants, and the employees can freely move from one unskilled role to the next. Unionization exists solely to extract additional wages that wouldn’t have been given willingly. They’re effectively extorting Starbucks. Same as any con trying to extort protection money from a shop.

Re: Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz's fight to stop a union uprising

#27

Post by jelliclesfarm »

hey2022 wrote: post #22
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #12

We have a strong legal system that protects employees. We should start working on it and strengthening it so every employee has protections instead of these hived off unions. Unions started for factory workers and farm workers too when they had no rights. It’s entirely unnecessary and disruptive now to rely on unions that simply use an artifact of the past to bully employers and reduce productivity. In America, we ha…

Hard to respond to such a long comment containing so many different talking points. I can’t tell if you are advocating for updating labor laws instead of relying on unions to influence individual employers. If that’s the case - that’s a strong argument. Since forcing stronger labor protections at the Federal or even State level takes a very long time and is usually counter-acted by extremely powerful corporate lobbyi…

Why are we always comparing America to Europe? What if we compare America to China?

America is America. We will have to do what’s best for us. Constant and random comparisons with other countries picked for simply beating down America isn’t helpful.

Re: Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz's fight to stop a union uprising

#28

Post by hey2022 »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #27
hey2022 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to respond to such a long comment containing so many different talking points. I can’t tell if you are advocating for updating labor laws instead of relying on unions to influence individual employers. If that’s the case - that’s a strong argument. Since forcing stronger labor protections at the Federal or even State level takes a very long time and is usually counter-acted by extremely powerful corporate lobbyi…

Why are we always comparing America to Europe? What if we compare America to China? America is America. We will have to do what’s best for us. Constant and random comparisons with other countries picked for simply beating down America isn’t helpful.

Because humans strive to become better over time, not worse. Practicing gratitude is important, but if we fixate on "well, at least we are not Bangladesh", then we won't have much motivation to improve things.

Re: Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz's fight to stop a union uprising

#29

Post by jelliclesfarm »

hey2022 wrote: post #28
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are we always comparing America to Europe? What if we compare America to China? America is America. We will have to do what’s best for us. Constant and random comparisons with other countries picked for simply beating down America isn’t helpful.

Because humans strive to become better over time, not worse. Practicing gratitude is important, but if we fixate on "well, at least we are not Bangladesh", then we won't have much motivation to improve things.

This is entirely irrelevant. In what way is America going to ‘become better’ by emulating European(a cluster of many countries) labour laws?

European unemployment rates are much higher..at least 50% more..than American unemployment rates. There has been no relative increase in wages in Europe whereas it has been steadily increasing in America leading to better quality of life index.

There is no comprehensive Europe vs USA comparison but this is a good read of how they dealt with the pandemic(most of the countries mentioned have less than 1/4 population of US)

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/pandemic-shows-contra...

There is no way to compare Europe to America but it serves better to compare America to China or India as USA is the third most populous country in the world after the other two.

Comparing America to 5 million peopled NZ and 60 million peopled France is an entirely useless exercise. Unless the purpose of the comparison is to simply pit western countries with a majority white population with other countries with a white majority…therefore ignoring comparable countries from the east. And that’s is frankly Racist.

China is more comparable to USA when it comes to economy than any other European country. But they are Asian, so it doesn’t count seems to be your stance.

Re: Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz's fight to stop a union uprising

#30

Post by CogitoCogito »

djbebs wrote: post #17
toomuchtodo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starbucks is their company. It could not exist without their labor. By unionizing, they obtain that power. You may feel different, but this is what labor regulations and the NLRB is for: to protect workers’ organization rights.

Starbucks belongs to its shareholders, end of story. If unions hadn't seized political power to grant themselves unjust power these leeches, which is what they undoubtedly are, would be where they deserve, fired. They are suppliers of labor, and should be treated like any other supplier of any other good or service, rather than being privileged by the force of law.

It was through political power that the rights of shareholders were created as well. It’s just a legal construct after all. Are shareholders leaches too?
Post reply on HN